Phil Hellmuth genuinely thought his book was great and that he could teach the beginner players. He didn't use shady advertising. There is a huge difference. Tri on other hand knows exactly what his product is and the shady tactics he uses to mislead people to buy his books.

Wait so anyone who pays for a coaching listing gets a green name and verified status?

For $150 per month with discounts if you pay for 3 or 12 months in advance you get a coaching thread and your undertitle changes to "See my coaching listing." Anyone can have a coaching thread if they want to pay for it.

Green names are for mods. There's no formal process to become a mod; you'd probably have to post a lot in a specific forum and maybe express interest if a modship spot opened up.

I don't really feel like it's 2p2's responsibility to police the coaching threads. You're basically just paying for a classified ad. The market should take care of the rest. But I could be wrong.

call me old fashioned, but before I'm going to crucify some guys in public for putting out crap, I'm going to want to see what they put out. as previouly mentioned the poker blueprint is actually one of the better books out there for noobs. it's not going to make anyone 100k, but that's a high hurdle for a BOOK. sure, you can punish them for poor marketing choices. but in that case i'm going to want to throw Hellmuth, Vohaus, Cloutier, etc there first.

this isn't really logical. it's possible that hellmuth, vohaus, and cloutier were immoral in their book businesses, but if they were and tri was, and no one did anything about the first three, that doesn't mean we should let tri basically blatantly lie to newbies.

this isn't really logical. it's possible that hellmuth, vohaus, and cloutier were immoral in their book businesses, but if they were and tri was, and no one did anything about the first three, that doesn't mean we should let tri basically blatantly lie to newbies.

Being a bad coach or a bad player is not unethical.

Misrepresenting your background or your results, or deliberately misleading your customers is the issue here. It is not just DV/Slowhabit IMO, you can see it a horde of coaching threads in the 2p2 coaching forum. I feel as though although in this situation they have become the target, this undercurrent has been brewing for a long time, and finally the community has delivered some back-lash against what has largely been a market-place left unaccountable.

People are not being completely up front with their results, and there is a LOT of marketing speak quite frankly, and not enough concrete stuff.

As if choosing a coach wasn't difficult enough for a potential player. The informational understanding gap is just like in Black Swan where he discusses how Doctors or Mechanics are able to fleece their customers because their customers have such a lesser understanding of the basis on which they are selecting a professional and then being charged.

Ultimately the thing that concerns me the most is the moderation of bad publicity. It is difficult because TwoPlusTwo is willing to accept advertising dollars with one hand, but then also has some responsibility to moderate which becomes more complicated. They should also have a responsibility to let the market communicate freely.

We all have to deal with an imperfect system, but I would hope that there is actually some kind of communitarian sense of at least not trying to mislead the latest entrants to the very community that players/coaches built their own livelihood from.

Poker coaching like a number of other fields obv needs some sort of consumer protection agency or something.

The real problem is that almost everyone who is qualified to run that sort of thing has no interest in doing so for a variety of reasons. It seems this is a problem that will almost always exist. Scammers gonna scam imo.

Poker coaching like a number of other fields obv needs some sort of consumer protection agency or something.

The real problem is that almost everyone who is qualified to run that sort of thing has no interest in doing so for a variety of reasons. It seems this is a problem that will almost always exist. Scammers gonna scam imo.

I think the problem goes deeper. First of all, it's difficult to evaluate an individual's coaching aptitude. Good PTR = good coach (which some people assume) is misguided. Good players don't always make good coaches and good high stakes coaches don't always make good coaches for beginners.

Secondly, let's say somehow we figure out that a person is qualified to coach beginning micro stakes FR players. How do we determine what is and isn't a fair price for them to charge? Again - it's not as trivial as "Some % of their hourly rate at the tables." That's like comparing apples to oranges. The more someone coaches, the less they are able to maximize their hourly rate at the tables. The more someone grinds, the worse they are able to coach (as time spent on one takes away from growing in the other).

I think the problem goes deeper. First of all, it's difficult to evaluate an individual's coaching aptitude. Good PTR = good coach (which some people assume) is misguided. Good players don't always make good coaches and good high stakes coaches don't always make good coaches for beginners.

Secondly, let's say somehow we figure out that a person is qualified to coach beginning micro stakes FR players. How do we determine what is and isn't a fair price for them to charge? Again - it's not as trivial as "Some % of their hourly rate at the tables." That's like comparing apples to oranges. The more someone coaches, the less they are able to maximize their hourly rate at the tables. The more someone grinds, the worse they are able to coach (as time spent on one takes away from growing in the other).

- i agree that good ptr =/ good coach, but i think recent, documented winnings are a pre-requisite to being a coach.

- it's not really our place to determine what a 'fair' price for a coach to charge is, and it won't be necessary if people are upfront, honest, and clear about their table winnings and student history.

I think the problem goes deeper. First of all, it's difficult to evaluate an individual's coaching aptitude. Good PTR = good coach (which some people assume) is misguided. Good players don't always make good coaches and good high stakes coaches don't always make good coaches for beginners.

Secondly, let's say somehow we figure out that a person is qualified to coach beginning micro stakes FR players. How do we determine what is and isn't a fair price for them to charge? Again - it's not as trivial as "Some % of their hourly rate at the tables." That's like comparing apples to oranges. The more someone coaches, the less they are able to maximize their hourly rate at the tables. The more someone grinds, the worse they are able to coach (as time spent on one takes away from growing in the other).

def agree in general. It would be a complicated venture.

I think one of the main goals of a poker coaching consumer protection agency wouldn't necessarily be setting prices as much as it would be about creating standards for what it takes to "become a coach."

Something not as simple as getting a decent score on a standardized test and something not as complicated as say becoming a master plumber.

As if choosing a coach wasn't difficult enough for a potential player. The informational understanding gap is just like in Black Swan where he discusses how Doctors or Mechanics are able to fleece their customers because their customers have such a lesser understanding of the basis on which they are selecting a professional and then being charged.

Yes, but the great thing about poker is that there is actually a pretty easy way to check how skilled someone is: results! Sure, you don't know if he's going to be the best teacher, but you can easily find out if he knows how to play poker.

And I would actually argue what it is reasonable common that good poker players are at least reasonable teachers. To be good at poker is understanding what you are doing and why you are doing it. If you know why you are doing something, you can probably explain it to someone. Only players who don't really know what they are doing are going to be the group that are going to produce hard to follow bull**** logic. And it's also not like you are teaching a child were it's an art to keep his attention. Most students are adults, probably with an above average intelligence and presumably very interested in what you have to say.

As far as Split goes, the regs from the micro full-ring community have a tremendous amount of respect for Split. He has earned every bit of it. He has selflessly worked with regs on their game. Gone into great detail for newbs with strat questions. He has been entrusted to judge contests like the team win-rate challenge last February.(overseeing 45 players)

There is no doubt he can coach the game. There are many who crush the game but have no idea how to translate via coaching. He did well for himself early on as a player and has the exceptional ability to coach which is a total different skillset. I think it was a wise choice. I played soccer in college, I wasn't fast enough to play at the highest level, however I could analyze and dissect teams and coach at a high level. The same principal applies.

As far as Split goes, the regs from the micro full-ring community have a tremendous amount of respect for Split. He has earned every bit of it. He has selflessly worked with regs on their game. Gone into great detail for newbs with strat questions. He has been entrusted to judge contests like the team win-rate challenge last February.(overseeing 45 players)

There is no doubt he can coach the game. There are many who crush the game but have no idea how to translate via coaching. He did well for himself early on as a player and has the exceptional ability to coach which is a total different skillset. I think it was a wise choice. I played soccer in college, I wasn't fast enough to play at the highest level, however I could analyze and dissect teams and coach at a high level. The same principal applies.

this isn't really a good point, it's not the same as a soccer coach. soccer today is pretty much the same as soccer 10 years ago, so an ex-player still knows what should be done. poker strategy today is nothing like it was even 5 years ago, so why would someone who barely had any success several years ago be a qualified coach for today's games?

Slight exaggeration lol don't forget splitsuit coaches the micros... what have the main quantum leaps in poker strategy been at the micros in the past few years then? Obviously there have been some changes, but it's ridiculous to say poker strategy has completely changed at the micros.